The Israeli Flotilla Raid is being Criticized Incorrectly

Israel is now receiving widespread condemnation from government and institutional leaders from around the world. I have skimmed the internet, and almost all of the criticism that I have found has two things in common;

• First, Israel’s critics are all saying the same thing; in other words Israel’s critics appear to be cooperating.
• Secondly, these critics all saying that Israel used disproportionate force in engaging the ship and this is what caused the deaths of 9 people.

The staff of Backbench Media (Me) can find fault in the Israeli raid also; but in a completely different manner. Israel’s greatest mistake is that it violated military ideas formulated by the brilliant Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz.

Clausewitz died in 1831 but his ideas have been read and re-read by military thinkers from that time on. He is widely considered to be the world’s greatest military thinker; and after nearly 200 years, his thinking on military strategy is considered modern.

Clausewitz never believed in moderation during a conflict; instead, he advocated the use of overwhelming power. And in that regard, Clausewitz was right and Israel was dead wrong. When Israeli commandos first boarded the ship they were armed with Paintball Guns! This completely violates Clausewitz’ view of military strategy and probably contributed to the violence.

Wouldn’t it make common sense to go into a conflict with the greatest possible advantages? But think about your local police department and assume that they get a call for help concerning a person who is out of control. Will they send one officer to politely ask that person to stop or will they send 10 cops in case there is trouble? Would they have sent someone with a paintball gun??

Police departments have found that an overwhelming and superior force not only limits the casualties to the police but that same dominating force also limits injury to the person being arrested.

What would have happened if Israel had asked the ship to stop, and when it refused they then shot out the propeller and rudder and then surrounded it with gunboats? Obviously the “peace activists” armed with pipes and knives couldn’t have attacked them. Would the aid ship have surrendered without violence? Wouldn’t a nonviolent surrender would have been the most probable outcome?

—————–

Here is a quote from Clausewitz about the logical absurdity of moderation during a conflict:  

“Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds; it is a fallacy that must be exposed: war is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. The maximum use of force is in no way incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect.”

Israel isn’t in a declared war but I believe that Clausewitz’ ideas of overwhelming force would have increased the chances of a nonviolent outcome.

——————–

Here is a small list of world leaders who have criticized the Israeli raid. As you would expect, they criticized the raid for the wrong reasons.

• French President Nicolas Sarkozy “condemns the disproportionate use of force and sends his condolences to the families of the victims. (I am sure that you would agree that Israel would do better by getting its military strategy from Clausewitz and not from the French.)
• The UN General Secretary what’s-his-face has demanded that Israel lift its blockade on Gaza immediately. (Boy there’s a shock, the UN is opposed to Israeli Policy.)
• Former President Jimmy Carter has condemned a deadly Israeli raid on a flotilla of aid ships on its way to Gaza. (Maybe Carter wants Israel to emulate his foreign policy brilliance.)
• Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as “completely unacceptable”, saying he deplored the loss of life. (After watching Cameron in the Parlement debates and on CSPAN’s Q&A, I began to worry that he is a vacuous politician. Unfortunately my gut feeling seems to be accurate. Many American conservatives cheered Cameron’s election victory because he is a member of the British Conservative Party, but I think that Labour’s Gordon Brown might just go down in history as a political giant when compared to this guy. At least Brown had a backbone, even if he was frequently wrong.)